California Bill Would Require Landlords to Accept Pets
California Bill Would Require Landlords to Accept Pets
Supporters say the law would remove barriers that contribute to the housing crisis, but property owners are balking at the plan.
You're viewing a single thread.
You want rent prices to go even higher? Because this is how you get higher rent prices. The cost to deal with a pet before the next tenant is much higher than a no pet tenancy. Obvious, on average.
If everyone can have pets and no discrimination, then your rent will have to be priced on assuming you will have a pet. The house will have to be recarpeted and ozoned and off market for at least a week or two in between tenants to allow for it.
If you think that California landlords aren’t already charging the absolute most they can for renting houses, you’re probably paying less than $3800/month for a 2/1 built in 1906.
All these "this will cause X to raise prices" responses always inherently assume that the people currently setting the prices are just giving everyone a deal because they feel like they've made enough profit and don't need any more. Maybe you've got a sweetheart landlord here or there, but the market writ large isn't leaving money on the table. The only reason rents aren't higher is because at some point the preferable alternative is moving away or homelessness
And the first time a tenants dog does $5k in damage to your house, you look at the next tenant wanting a year lease and say that's an extra $400/mo minimum. That's how it works. Being a landlord isn't a charity.
It’s totally not how it works. If you could get an extra $400/month because someone was willing to pay that, you’d do it.
That's not how it works. You advertise at market rates. If the rules change, the market rates will rise
It will rise to the level where the supply and demand curves meet, modulo market uncertainty and information imbalance.
I’ve rented several places that listed “no pets,” and after telling them I’d pay an extra $200 per month or whatever because I had two 75lb pit bulls, no one even blinked. If they had originally thought they could get away with charging the extra $200 and people would snap it up, they would have.
Most people renting houses do not do sufficient due diligence on market rates, and there’s enough variability in both housing and tenants that it’s probably a bit difficult to price ideally. If you have a large enough company that you can write some kind of statistical analysis and are renting similar/identical places in the same building, that’s one thing. If you’re a new buyer just purchasing a second house to rent over on 2nd Street because it’s $800k and you think you can cover the mortgage in rent after looking at Zillow, that’s something else.
That has been true historically, I'm not so sure now. They have started using algorithms. There's some sort of Zillow type shit for landlords that monitors every market and is helping them price gouge, market fix, and pluropolize. Thank fuck I don't have to worry about that
The law allows them to require pet liability insurance if the tenant has a pet.
Nobody is filing a claim for pet damage. You risk losing your entire policy or raising the rates. You keep catastrophic by law, and never use it. You've obviously never landlorded
"the landlords love to reap where they never sowed and demand a rent even for its natural produce.”
- Adam Smith
There is a shortage of property. The price of rent is already what the highest bidder is prepared to pay for it.
Adam "The Father of Capitalism" Smith on land leeches:
"the landlords love to reap where they never sowed and demand a rent even for its natural produce.”
As always, California and the Champagne Democrats will enact half measures that will only hurt people in the long run but look good on billboards come election season. There's so much deeper problems to address before something like this can be implemented beneficially.